ArXiv bans researchers for 1 year over unedited AI slop in papers

ArXiv, the leading preprint repository for academic research, is cracking down on AI-generated slop. Thomas Dietterich, section chair of computer science, announced on X that authors submitting papers with “incontrovertible evidence” of unverified LLM output will face a one-year ban from the platform. Examples include hallucinated references and meta-comments left by the AI, such as “here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?” or “the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments.” After the ban, authors must have future submissions accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue before posting to ArXiv. Dietterich noted that moderators must document the problem and the section chair must confirm the penalty before enforcement.

This update builds on last year's policy, which already required that review articles and position papers be peer-reviewed before posting. The new rule explicitly targets papers where authors clearly did not check AI-generated content, aiming to restore trust in the platform. However, it relies on moderators catching obvious AI artifacts—subtle slop may still slip through. The policy reflects growing concerns about LLMs flooding scientific literature with low-quality, error-ridden content, which burdens peer reviewers and undermines research integrity. By imposing tangible consequences, ArXiv hopes to deter careless use of generative AI in academic submissions.